https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5099 Where income escaped assessment because the assessee did not fully and truly disclose material facts, reassessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was justified and the burden remained on the assessee to show that the officer already knew the relevant income. The reassessment dated 16 October 1952 was therefore held valid and within limitation under section 34(1)(a). Unexplained investment in the sarpat and bamboo business was treated as income from an undisclosed source assessable in the relevant previous year in which the investment was made, and the later examination of the same matter did not bar reassessment. The reassessment dated 18 March 1954 was also upheld as valid. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5099 Where income escaped assessment because the assessee did not fully and truly disclose material facts, reassessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was justified and the burden remained on the assessee to show that the officer already knew the relevant income. The reassessment dated 16 October 1952 was therefore held valid and within limitation under section 34(1)(a). Unexplained investment in the sarpat and bamboo business was treated as income from an undisclosed source assessable in the relevant previous year in which the investment was made, and the later examination of the same matter did not bar reassessment. The reassessment dated 18 March 1954 was also upheld as valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5099